Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
85. Should the court of appeals reverse the conviction?
When the child finished testifying, subject to full cross-examination by defense counsel, the defendant was allowed back into the courtroom. The trial concluded, and the jury convicted the defendant. The defendant appealed the conviction, challenging only his exclusion from the courtroom.
When the child entered the courtroom to testify, the defendant became unruly, moving as though he was about to lunge from his chair toward the child. The judge warned the defendant to stop the behavior. After a second warning, the judge told the defendant that he would be removed from the courtroom if he continued to behave inappropriately. The defendant then shouted a threat at the child. At that point, the court ordered the defendant removed from the courtroom.
A defendant was charged with two counts of murder. One trial witness was a child who had seen one of the killings. Before calling the child to testify, the prosecution moved to remove the defendant from the courtroom, arguing that the child would be intimidated by seeing the defendant. The court denied the motion.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. As a rule, the possibility that testifying may be traumatic or uncomfortable for a witness does not overcome the defendant's constitutional rights both to a public trial and to confront witnesses. Although there are limited exceptions in cases involving children, those exceptions are narrow, and they require both the presentation of evidence and specific findings by the trial court, which did not occur here. See Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988); Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
C is incorrect. There was no error here. However, if there had been an error, it would not automatically result in reversal. Whether the error would require reversal would depend on the type of right affected as well as the nature of the error, whether «harmless» or «plain.»
D is incorrect. There was no error here. However, if there had been an error, excluding the defendant would not be considered a «harmless error» and would instead be a «plain error.» A «plain error» is an error that affects the substantial rights of the parties.